For those of you who abstain from the news (I know there are many of you) you may accidentally have heard some talk about the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. Given the controversial nature of the war (as propaganda is also a standard weapon of modern war) it’s only natural to seek a higher, reliable source of information apart from the parties directly involved (at least for those who aren’t abstaining from the news). For many, this means the United Nations.

If you read nothing else linked in this post, I highly recommend at least reading Charles Krauthammer’s Moral clarity in Gaza.

It is true that war can be irreconcilably complicated, both in its implementation and in its causes. However, there are also ways to prolong war rather than end it quickly. Concern for the asymmetrical nature of the Gaza conflict often leads to calls for “restraint” from Israel. These calls sound like a desire for the war capability on both sides to be “fair” so both sides can pummel each other more equally. This does not help end war more quickly, it prolongs war. Time and again, conflict after conflict, calls for peace often have the result of postponing hostilities, while the participants take time to regroup and set up for another onslaught. This is particularly true of ceasefires in Gaza, where Palestinian militant groups take advantage of ceasefires in this very way (often whileignoringorviolatingceasefires).

So it’s healthy to ask questions about these things, if understanding is really a priority for us. For example, we might ask what sort of ideas does the U.N. promote for regions suffering the ravages of war?

New York, NY (CFAM/LifeNews) — A new UN directive to promote abortion in war-torn areas went unchallenged when it was presented to member states at UN headquarters last week.

The high level UN officials who presented a guidance note of the Secretary-General with the new directive in a packed meeting room at UN headquarters were visibly anxious. It is the first time the Secretary-General has openly instructed UN staff and officials to promote abortion. No one used the term “abortion” during the meeting, but it was clearly on everyone’s mind.

Officials and delegates looked around furtively, scouting the room as if to anticipate where the challenge might come from. In the end, the challenge never came.

So, for war-torn areas, the U.N. essentially promotes killing more people. Under the auspices of “sustainability” the U.N. also promotes abortion to help reduce poverty. Rather than looking at the productivity potential of population growth the U.N. overwhelmingly view issues from the perspective of a burden on resources. This has an unfortunate and remarkably uncompassionate result of viewing people merely as statistics rather than as people.

So what am I getting at? Well, the U.N. is publicly and unapologetically supportive of reducing population on the front end (the pre-born) to “help people” and help the world. And given the curious attitudes about current military conflicts one may begin to wonder if the U.N. also supports reducing population on the back end (the rest of us). Now if you’re thinking this is an outrageous suggestion, you might be right, or you might be wrong. If you think my suggestion is absurd because eugenics is such a horrid thing, you’d be right in thinking eugenics is a horrid thing. But you’d be wrong in thinking no one at the U.N. is seriously considering eugenics as a viable method of accomplishing anything.

So why not take the United Nations at their word? Because calling eugenics Eugenics stinks of Nazism, and yet the agenda is there none-the-less. So they avoid using politically charged words but promote the ideas behind those words. Pushing policies which intentionally reduce the world’s population is the modus operandi for the U.N. We should call it what it is: eugenics, elitism, evil.

The United Nations supports population reduction (for the greater good, of course), and abortion and war both accomplish this objective. So be careful when you hear people calling for peace but push ideas that don’t (and may not be meant to) actually end war. Saying “stop the killing” is naive and meaningless among those actually in the conflict. And there is no reason to believe Israel’s enemies are interested in stopping the killing, and why would they? They get tremendous political capital out of the carnage while Israel gets nothing but condemnation from the international community. Israel has every incentive to end the killing and yet the IDF goes out of its way to NOT totally obliterate the Palestinian people (which they have the capability of doing). The Palestinians want war, and the evidence suggests the United Nations might want war as well.

Claiming Hamas or Boko Haram or ISIS just want peace, that Israel is a force for evil, or that the U.N. wants what’s best for all sides doesn’t make it so. Policies and actions should speak louder than words on these issues and I suspect the U.N. may not be as beneficent as they claim.